Director of Public Prosecutions v Hodgson
[2019] VCC 1441
•3 September 2019
| IN THE COUNTY COURT OF VICTORIA | Revised Not Restricted Suitable for Publication |
AT MELBOURNE
CRIMINAL JURISDICTIONCR-17-02348
CR-17-02349
| DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS |
| v |
| SHANE HODGSON ADREAS SIANAS |
---
| JUDGE: | HIS HONOUR JUDGE LACAVA |
| WHERE HELD: | Melbourne |
| DATE OF HEARING: | Trial 7 July - 12 July 2018 Plea 27 June 2019 |
| DATE OF SENTENCE: | 3 September 2019 |
| CASE MAY BE CITED AS: | DPP v Hodgson |
| MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION: | [2019] VCC 1441 |
REASONS FOR SENTENCE
---Subject: Aggravated burglary, intentionally causing injury and others
Sentence: Hodgson - nine and a half years' imprisonment with a non-parole period of six and a half years and Sianas - nine years' imprisonment with a non-parole period of six years.---
APPEARANCES: | Counsel | Solicitors |
| For the Director of Public Prosecutions | Mr T. Gyorffy QC Ms L. Treasure | Office of Public Prosecutions |
| For Accused Hodson | Ms E. Clark (for the trial) Ms G. Connelly (for the sentence) | |
| For Accused Sianas | Ms J. Fayman (for the sentence) Mr A. Chernok (for the trial) |
HIS HONOUR:
1You, Andreas Sianas, and you, Shane Hodgson, have each been convicted, after a trial by a jury of a number of crimes, each of which was committed by the two of you acting together on 9 September 2016.
2You each pleaded not guilty to each charge, and whilst neither of you can be punished for having done so, at the same time, neither of you can expect a reduction in sentence that would normally follow had each of you pleaded guilty, thus avoiding the need for a trial.
3By unanimous verdicts, the jury found each of you guilty of the following charges:
· One charge of theft (Charge 1), for which the maximum penalty is imprisonment for 10 years;
· One charge of aggravated burglary for which the maximum penalty is imprisonment for 25 years (Charge 2);
· Two charges of intentionally causing injury for which the maximum penalty on each charge is imprisonment for 10 years (Charges 3 and 13);
· Four charges of common law assault for which the maximum penalty on each charge is imprisonment for five years (Charges 4 to 7);
· Five charges of false imprisonment for which the maximum penalty for each of those charges is imprisonment for 10 years (Charges 8 to 12).
4You, Shane Hodgson, were also convicted of one charge of arson. It was alleged that you committed that crime alone. The maximum penalty for arson is imprisonment for 15 years (Charge 14).
5The prosecution case, which must be taken for the purposes of sentencing as having been accepted by the jury, was that the two of you entered a house in Brunswick West at about 3.30 am on 9 September 2016. You were both armed with guns and you assaulted the occupants within. Your intent was to recover a drug debt from Brenton Murphy.
6Brenton Murphy, a visitor to the house, was the target of your home invasion. He was severely beaten with the butt of a shot gun, as well as other objects, and he was ultimately shot in the thigh with a rifle. Shortly afterwards the both of you left the scene of the crimes. After dropping off Mr Sianas, you, Hodgson, abandoned the stolen vehicle you were driving and you set fire to it. (Charge 14).
7The prosecution case was a strong circumstantial case and it is necessary that I summarise it in order to draw attention to just how serious the offending of each of you is to be regarded.
8On or about 20 August 2016 you, Sianas, stole a motor vehicle being a Subaru wagon. Before trial, you had been charged with and had pleaded guilty to having stolen this vehicle, and you had been dealt with for that in the Magistrates' Court.
9In the trial, as a matter of evidence, you admitted having access to that vehicle between 20 August and 9 September 2016, which included the time this offending occurred, that is 9 September 2016.
10At some time during the evening of 8 September, the two if you stole numberplates registered number SKF 030 from a Mitsubishi Outlander vehicle that was parked outside an address near to Mr Sianas' home (Charge 1). Those numberplates were then attached to the stolen Subaru wagon which had been stolen by you, Sianas, on 25 August 2016.
11A body of evidence was led in the trial, tracing the movements of the stolen Subaru to near the address in Brunswick West, where the bulk of the offending occurred. The prosecution case was that the Subaru was the vehicle used by both of you to travel to and from the Brunswick West address.
12When you entered the house you, Mr Hodgson, being taller than Mr Sianas, who was described as being short and stockier than the taller man, entered the house carrying a sawn-off double-barrel shotgun. You, Mr Sianas, were in possession of a sawn-off .22 calibre rifle. You both entered the house through the back door which was unlocked, while the occupants of the house were all asleep. You were both disguised wearing balaclavas and covering your faces.
13Your joint purpose in going to the property was to recover a drug debt said to be owed by Brenton Murphy who was also asleep within the home when you both entered (Charge 2 Aggravated Burglary).
14In addition to Mr Murphy, there were four other occupants of the house, Loren Sanders, Dylan Volk, who occupied one bedroom, and Chelsea Stevenson and Zak Kleesch occupied another.
15Murphy was only a visitor to the house. He was sleeping on a couch in the lounge room. He was awoken by being hit in the face by the stock of a double-barrelled shotgun held by you, Mr Hodgson.
16You both then moved Mr Murphy into the bedroom occupied by Ms Sanders and her friend. Murphy was thrown onto the bed and the beating of him by both of you continued in that room. Later, Murphy was moved back into the lounge room where he was further beaten with the shot gun, bolt cutters and other objects. As a result of this assault he was injured (Charge 3 Intentionally Cause Injury).
17Ms Sanders and her boyfriend, Volk, had been asleep in her bed before the both of you entered her room wearing balaclavas and carrying guns. You ripped the sheets from her bed and told her and Volk to get out of bed whilst pointing a gun at her. She was naked, and you at least had the decency to provide her towel. You ordered both Ms Sanders and her boyfriend into the lounge room.
18Ms Stevenson and Mr Kleesch were in the same position. You went into their bedroom whilst they were asleep. You woke them up and ordered them from the room into the lounge room.
19Whilst all of this was going on, you were demanding to know where the money was. From all of the evidence, it was clear that the purpose of your visit was to get money from Mr Murphy.
20The two of you gathered all of the occupants in the house in the lounge room (False Imprisonment) and you there continued to assault Mr Murphy. Some of the occupants were seated on a couch in the lounge room and others were on the floor nearby. You, Sianas, were standing behind the people on the couch and you were armed with the sawn off .22 calibre rifle. At one point Murphy tried to escape but he ended up in the lounge room near the door to the bathroom. You, Sianas, fired two shots from the rifle you were carrying from your position behind the couch. One bullet struck Mr Murphy in the thigh (Charge 13 Intentionally Cause Injury).
21Your attempts to obtain money from Murphy by threats and violence having proved unsuccessful, you both then left the house via the rear door.
22Charges 4 to 7 inclusive are each charges of common assault of each of the four occupants of the home other than Murphy, and relate to the use by the both of you of guns that you pointed in a threatening way at the occupants.
23Charges 8 to 12 inclusive are each charges of false imprisonment of each of the same occupants when you ordered them into the lounge room and you would not permit them to leave. Apart from pointing a gun at the occupants and ordering them into the lounge room, none of them was physically harmed. No victim impact statements were put in evidence.
24The police and ambulance were called to the scene of the crime but the two of you had decamped. Murphy was taken to the Royal Melbourne Hospital by ambulance and treated for extensive bruising and lacerations, and he had a bullet lodged in his upper right thigh which required surgical removal.
25The path of the Subaru wagon was also traced across Melbourne to the eastern suburbs via cameras on Citylink and a speed camera in Alexandra Parade. You, Hodgson, dropped Mr Sianas off at or near his home in Canterbury and you then travelled on to Kallista, where you destroyed the car by setting it alight (Charge 14 arson).
26Four days later, on 13 of September 2016, a search warrant was executed at the home address of you, Sianas ,and a sawn-off double-barrelled shotgun was located in your locked bedroom. The gun had blood stains on it, which subsequent DNA analysis showed was that of Mr Murphy and it could safely be inferred that shotgun found in your possession was the gun used to assault Murphy by hitting him in the face with the stock.
27You, Hodgson, were arrested on 23 September 2016 and you made a 'no comment' record of interview, as was your right.
28You, Sianas, were interviewed on 13 June 2017 and you also exercised your right to make no comment.
29This offending is of a high level. It was obviously planned and timed to coincide with Murphy's attendance at the house as a visitor. It was planned to impart maximum violence and fear into the occupants.
30A stolen vehicle was used and false registration plates fitted to it. You both travelled some distance across Melbourne from the eastern suburbs to Brunswick West to attempt to obtain money from Murphy. Evidence showed mobile phones were turned off at times, inferring you were conscious to take steps to ensure your movements whilst carrying a mobile phone could not be detected. You, Hodgson, destroyed the vehicle by fire to avoid detection.
31You both disguised yourselves with balaclavas and armed yourselves with guns and a set of bolt cutters. You both entered the home of strangers in the middle of the night whilst the occupants were asleep and you imparted extreme violence on Murphy and you, Sianas, shot him in the leg as well as firing another shot. Your assault upon Murphy was entirely unprovoked.
32You subjected each of the other occupants to a high degree of fear from the threat of violence and gathered them in the lounge room and would not allow them to leave. There can be no doubt that this offending must have subjected all within the house to a violent and terrifying experience.
33Each occupant of the house was made to witness the violence that you imparted upon Murphy. Your combined offending within the house is that of a high level home invasion. Neither of you has shown any remorse. You, Hodgson, offended here whilst on youth parole.
34The maximum penalties for both aggravated burglary and intentionally causing injury reflect how seriously I must regard this kind of offending. It matters not that the victim, Murphy, may have owed a drug debt. That is irrelevant and does not justify this level of lawlessness. It does not ameliorate the seriousness of your combined offending in any way.
35In sentencing each of you for these crimes, I must have regard to deterrence, in the case of each of you both general and specific, denunciation and for the need to protect the community. I must also have regard to each of your prospects for rehabilitation and, importantly, the sentences imposed must be just. There must also be parity in the sentence imposed on each of you. It was conceded (appropriately) by counsel for each of you that I must sentence each of you to a term of imprisonment and fix a non-parole period for this offending. In sentencing each of you, I am conscious of the fact that you are both still young men. I am also conscious of the fact that for a long time leading up to and at the time of offending you were both drug affected. This led you into crime and both of you have already spent considerable time in custody.
36I accept that there has been some delay between the time of this offending and the time of this sentencing. I accept that this delay has not been caused by either of you. There has been delay between the time of trial and the hearing of the plea. That was caused by the need for each of you to assemble evidence, particularly of a psychiatric and psychological nature. It was also caused by the fact that the Director of Public Prosecutions appealed the sentence imposed upon you, Hodgson, by Judge Condon in this court for offending that occurred a short time before this offending. All parties agreed that the plea should not proceed until that appeal was finalised and the Court of Appeal dealt with it on the 28 May of this year.
37In passing sentence upon each of you, I accept that I must avoid double punishment of you in relation to Charges 4 to 7 of common assault of the occupants of the house and eight to 12 that relate to false imprisonment of each of the occupants, including Murphy. I accept that Murphy apart, none of the occupants was physically assaulted by either of you and that the assault of the occupants of the house in Charges 4 to 7 merged with the false imprisonment, Charges 9 to 12. On each of the assault Charges 4 to 7 they will be dismissed without conviction pursuant to s.76 of the Sentencing Act 1991.
38I turn to matters personal to you, Sianas. You were born on the
6 February 1992 and you are now 27 years of age. You have a relevant criminal record from five previous court appearances listed on your LEAP report. Only two of those appearances are in adult courts. The significant feature of your prior offending is that it has all involved acts of violence.39In March 2012 you were dealt with in this court for recklessly causing serious injury. At that time, you were already serving detention in a youth training centre for the offences of affray, assault in company, unlawful assault, reckless conduct endangering serious injury.
40In addition to prior convictions shown on your LEAP report, I was told ,and it was accepted at the Bar table, that you were released from a period in custody on 1 March 2013. Your Parole was breached and you were returned to custody on 8 October 2014, owing 169 days. You were released from custody again on 29 January 2015. The sentence imposed by the County Court on the
16 March 2012 lapsed on 25 March 2015.41On 25 August 2016, you stole the Subaru Wagon used in this offending and you soon after committed other offences. On 30 August 2016, you committed the offence of reckless conduct endanger serious injury and being a prohibited person, possessed a firearm. You were not arrested on those matters until
13 September 2016 when you were remanded in custody for that earlier offending. In the meantime, you committed these offences that I must now sentence you for.42Your offending on 25 August 2016 was dealt with in the Melbourne Magistrates' Court on 18 July 2017. You were sentenced to 18 months' imprisonment with 308 days reckoned as time served. You were not charged with this offending until 14 June 2017. There was a contested committal in November 2017. The trial commenced on 26 June 2018 and the jury delivered its verdicts on the
12 July 2018. You have served 536 days pre-sentence detention for offending relating to these matters, not including today.43Your counsel, Mr Chernok, tendered and relied upon a psychiatric report of
Dr Lester Walton dated 24 September 2018. His report commences with, 'I note that while Mr Sianas has a fairly extensive prior criminal history, violent offending does not seem to predominate'. I do not accept that. Rather, a feature of your prior offending is a record of offences involving violence.44Dr Walton referred to a report from Dr P. Cooke which apparently referred to a diagnosis in March 2010 of schizophrenia with features of high anxiety and problems in concentrating. Dr Cooke's report was not put in evidence.
45Dr Walton also referred to a psychological report of Mr Ian MacKinnon dated
10 April 2017 and another of 14 September 2018. In this case, only the later report from Mr MacKinnon was tendered in evidence. Dr Walton thought
Mr MacKinnon's diagnosis as somewhat complicated and protracted. It was 'psychotic disorder – unspecified type [possibly associated with an undiagnosed post-traumatic stress disorder], poly substance abuse disorder and mixed anxiety and depressed mood disorder.'46Dr Walton opined in part in the following way, 'Mr Sianas' more or less unremitting history of substance abuse and his psychiatric difficulties have emerged in parallel and it is difficult to make a definitive choice between what might be schizophrenia aggravated by substance abuse compared with recurring episodes of drug induced mental disturbance. On the basis of the information that I have to hand and my observations of Mr Sianas, on a fine balance of probabilities, I am inclined to view that he is likely suffering from schizophrenia, albeit of quite modest proportions. The condition would not have been caused by the trauma he experienced as a 14-year-old but that may well have triggered the onset of illness which usually emerges a little later than that.
47'Clearly Mr Siana's is properly described as a substance – dependent person where alcohol, illicit and prescribed drugs have all been taken to possess.
48'Any person suffering from even low-grade paranoia and ongoing anxiety and depression, not especially uncommon among many in a prison setting, nevertheless will endure incarceration as being more onerous than others. Given the type of offending which Mr Sianas has been involved, I imagine that general deterrence may loom large and I am not able to state that he is suffering from a very serious psychiatric illness which might prompt some amelioration of general deterrence, but even low-grade schizophrenia with parallel mood disturbance is a major mental disorder and perhaps those principles may apply at least to some extent.'
49I do not accept the opinion of Dr Walton that you might be suffering from schizophrenia, albeit of quite modest proportions. His opinion is heavily qualified and guarded. Any such diagnosis must be questioned because you have a long history of drug and alcohol abuse which must be taken into account as a causative factor in your offending. I do accept that you may be suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder and anxiety and depressed mood, and I have taken this all into account in arriving at an appropriate sentence.
50You told Dr Walton that during the relevant period of offending you had been consuming one bottle of spirits daily and this had been a long established pattern. You also told Dr Walton that you had been smoking methamphetamine, a half to 1 gram daily, and to 'come down' you would use cannabis.
51In addition you had been prescribed major tranquilizing medication which you took in the reasonably substantial dose of 1000 milligrams daily. You were taking up to 14 Valium 5 milligram tablets daily, which is well in excess of the prescribed upper limit and, in addition to being prescribed Xanax, you also acquired additional Xanax illicitly, such that you consuming 16 to 18 milligrams daily.
52Sadly, you have been a long-term drug user. In the past you have undergone multiple detoxifications at Windana and other institutions under the auspices of YSAS.
53In custody you are prescribed Seroquel and Zoloft, as well as medication to help you sleep. You are also prescribed Aspirin and Panadeine Forte relating to cardiovascular problems and chronic back pain.
54At age 14 you were subjected to physical and sexual abuse whilst on a cadet camp at Puckapunyal. This was a turning point with the emergence thereafter of antisocial behaviour, a marked decline in educational performance and you having attracted psychiatric attention in a context of you having lurched into polysubstance abuse.
55You are one of four boys to hard-working decent parents. You grew up in Balwyn and the family was a happy one. Prior to your incarceration you and your girlfriend were living with your parents. At that time you had been in a relationship with your girlfriend for about two and a half years.
56At school you had been progressing academically very well and you also did well in sport until aged 14. I will return to this aspect shortly.
57You have minimal work history.
58I admitted into evidence a reference from your partner of three years. She has told me of how you have used your time in custody well, to rid yourself of drugs and to get yourself physically fit. She believes that you can now see a future for yourself where you can be productive and can achieve goals. All of this is to your credit. Despite your past, you are still young and it is not too late to turn your life around outside of a custodial setting. I think your prospects for rehabilitation must be regarded, however, because much will depend upon how you manage to stay away from drugs and alcohol outside of custody. I accept that you will have full family support to help you achieve rehabilitation, but you have always had that support.
59I also admitted into evidence a letter from your parents, which sets out much about your life and the difficulties you have had. You were a high-achieving student, both academically and at sport until the cadet camp in Year 6, aged 14. What happened there appears to be the commencement of the spiral downwards that you now find yourself in. Within a week of returning from the camp your whole life began to change in a way that could only be described as every parent's worst nightmare. Accepting, as I do, the veracity of what your parents have written on your behalf, their letter to me is a telling document which explains why and how your life changed, and perhaps how it came about that you turned to drugs from a young age. Sadly, it does not excuse your offending. In passing sentence, I have taken the letter to me from your parents fully into account.
60Mr Chernok filed a helpful outline of submissions on your behalf. He conceded your offending was serious and calls for the imposition of a term of imprisonment and the fixing of a non-parole period. He submitted that due to a number of factors I should impose a moderated head sentence and a shorter than ordinary non parole period.
61Mr Chernok asked me to take into account:
·(a), Your background circumstances;
·(b), The family support which you continue to enjoy;
·(c), The state of your mental health;
·(d), Delay in finalisation of these matters and;
·(e) Totality and the need to avoid a crushing sentence.
62Mr Chernok submitted that there is 'undeniably' a 'realistic connection' between what he described as your 'psychotic state and the offending'. He submitted this gives rise to application of Verdins principle 1, which should lead to a moderation of the head sentence. I do not accept this submission. There is no evidence upon which I could safely find that your offending was caused by a psychotic state or schizophrenia. The most likely cause of your crimes was that at the time you were a heavy illicit drug user and also a heavy user of alcohol and that you were affected by both at the time of the offending.
63Mr Chernok also asked me to take your psychological condition into account, in that you may find your time in custody more onerous than others. I accept you are being medicated in custody, but I note the evidence shows you appear to be using your time well, getting fit and remaining drug free. In passing sentence, I have taken your psychological state into account.
64I have taken the delay into account and I have moderated the head sentence and the non-parole period in part as a result.
65I have also taken into account totality as I must. I am conscious in this case of the need to do so. As I have said, you are still relatively young and from the evidence from your partner and parents, in custody and drug free you appear to have reset your goals to turn your life around. I am conscious of the need not to impose a crushing sentence so as not to crush your goals. But this must be balanced against the other sentencing principles which also need to be applied when considering an appropriate sentence for what, on any view, was very serious offending.
66I turn to matters personal to you, Mr Hodgson.
67You are now aged 25 years of age, having been born on 22 July 1994. At the time of this offending you were aged 22. You have a number of prior convictions from 12 previous court appearances, mostly in the Children's Court and Magistrates' Court. You were sentenced by Judge M. Bourke in this court in December of 2014 and again on 28 April 2015. Her Honour Judge Condon also sentenced you for armed robbery in 2018 and that sentence was the subject of an appeal by the Director of Public Prosecutions. The Court of Appeal upheld the appeal and re-sentenced you.
68Features of your prior offending are, it is prolific, and its use by you of violence, threats of violence and firearms. This offending occurred about three weeks after the armed robbery offending, which was ultimately dealt with by the Court of Appeal. At the time of the armed robbery and this offending for which I must now sentence you, you were on parole from the sentence for armed robbery imposed on you by Judge M. Bourke on 28 April 2015.
69You were arrested on the matters that went before Judge Condon on the
24 September 2016, about two weeks after this offending. You have been in custody now for 1074 days, which equates approximately to about three weeks short of three years. That is time served for the offending ultimately dealt with by the Court of Appeal and does not count as time served for this offending. You still have approximately two and a half years to serve of the sentence that you are currently serving, imposed by the Court of Appeal before you are eligible for parole.70Your prior offending and the sentence you are presently undergoing all has to be taken into account, both from the point of view of totality and also in an assessment of your prospects for rehabilitation, which I regrettably assess as bleak. As the Court of Appeal observed, it also has to be taken into account in assessing your psychiatric condition and balancing that against the need for any sentence imposed to protect the public. In sentencing you, I have endeavoured to do that.
71Ms Connelly filed with the court a helpful outline of submissions on your behalf. Your upbringing can truly be described as tragic. You were exposed from a very young age to family violence at the hands of your father. You were removed from your parent's care and made a state ward, aged 6. You were later forced to flee an abusive foster care placement, aged 15. You were later accommodated in a residential care unit until aged 18. You have a brother and sister and a grandmother who have not given up on you and remain in contact.
72You have had only a limited primary school education. You were enrolled in Year 9 but did not attend.
73You have had very little work, I assume because of the time you have been incarcerated. You had four days of work as a packer in 2013 and three months part time work tree lopping in 2016.
74I received into evidence a psychological report from Stephen Gault dated
20 September 2018. That report has also been before the Court of Appeal as was another report from Dr Aaron Cunningham, dated 12 April 2018, also received by me. Ms Connelly also relied upon a forensic psychiatric report of Dr Pandurangi dated 26 June 2019.75Your psychiatric history was before the Court of Appeal as well as your medical records of treatment at Thomas Embling Hospital. Dr Cunningham diagnosed you as suffering severe post-traumatic stress disorder. Mr Gault diagnoses you as suffering schizoaffective disorder, as well as alcohol and drug abuse disorders in remission, and antisocial personality disorder. Dr Khodaeifar diagnoses you as suffering 'psychotic disorder NOS'. Dr Pandurangi thought your condition to be indicative of a significant underlying psychological disturbance. He went on to say, 'It would not be surprising, given the family history of mental illness and risk factors he is exposed to, he ends up developing a frank psychotic illness in the near future.' He also thought that you present with a chronic significant risk of harm to self and suicide. He thought, and I accept, you are likely to experience incarceration as more onerous as compared to others who do not suffer from similar mental health conditions. He went on to say that your placement within the prison system will remain challenging and that you will need ongoing mental health support. He also thought you suffer from a significant polysubstance abuse disorder caused by cannabis, amphetamines and alcohol, currently in remission in a prison setting.
76This evidence, I think, justifies the submissions made by Ms Connelly at paragraphs 14 to 21 of her outline, which I accept, that you will find prison more burdensome than others. I was told that whilst in custody you have engaged in self-harm and, on at least three occasions, you have been moved to Thomas Embling Hospital. I do not accept that because of your mental health condition you are not a suitable vehicle for general deterrence. It is impossible in your case to decide that your mental state was a causative factor in your offending. This is because of your drug use.
77I have and do take into account your tragic upbringing. I also take into account your youth at the time of the offending and now. But as I say, you are a prolific offender and in a violent way, including the use of weapons. This offending was of a particularly serious kind and level.
78Ms Connelly submitted that I should order substantial concurrency between the sentence I impose and the sentence you are currently serving. That submission seems to be based upon the fact that this offending occurred about three weeks after the offending for the sentence being served. I will be effectively allowing for some three years concurrency and ordering six years to accumulate. I do so because of the seriousness of your offending, particularly the violence used, and the need to protect the public from you. In arriving at the head sentence to be imposed and in refixing the non-parole period, I am very conscious of the need not to impose a crushing sentence, particularly because you are still a young man.
Sentence of Sianas
79On Charge 1, theft, you are convicted and sentenced to a term of imprisonment of six months.
80On Charge 2, aggravated burglary, you are convicted and sentenced to a term of imprisonment of six years.
81On Charge 3, intentionally cause injury, you are convicted and sentenced to a term of imprisonment of two years.
82On Charge 4, common assault, is dismissed without the recording of a conviction.
83On Charge 5, common assault, is dismissed without the recording of a conviction.
84On Charge 6, common assault, is dismissed without the recording of a conviction.
85On Charge 7, common assault, is dismissed without the recording of a conviction.
86On Charge 8, false imprisonment, you are convicted and sentenced to a term of imprisonment of one year.
87On Charge 9, false imprisonment, you are convicted and sentenced to a term of imprisonment of one year.
88On Charge 10, false imprisonment, you are convicted and sentenced to a term of imprisonment of one year.
89On Charge 11, false imprisonment, you are convicted and sentenced to a term of imprisonment of one year.
90On Charge 12, false imprisonment, you are convicted and sentenced to a term of imprisonment of one year.
91On Charge 13, intentionally cause injury, you are convicted and sentenced to a term of imprisonment of two and a half years.
92I direct that one year of the sentence imposed on Charges 3 and 13, and three months of the sentence imposed on each of Charges 9 to 12 inclusive, cumulate upon the sentence imposed on Charge 2, making a total effective sentence of nine years' imprisonment.
93I direct that you serve a minimum term of six years before you are eligible for parole.
94I declare there has been 536 days pre-sentence detention already served under the sentences passed this day, and I direct that 536 days be reckoned as having been already served, be entered into the records of the court and be deducted administratively.
95In sentencing you, Mr Sianas, and in fixing accumulation between the charges, I have accumulated 12 months of the sentence imposed on Charge 13 with the base sentence, whereas in fixing appropriate accumulation for this offence in the case of you, Mr Hodgson, I have only accumulated six months of the sentence imposed on Charge 13. That is because it must be assumed from the way that the case was put before the jury, it was you Sianas that fired the shot from the rifle which wounded Murphy in the thigh.
Sentence of Hodgson
96On Charge 1, theft, you are convicted and sentenced to a term of imprisonment of six months.
97On Charge 2, aggravated burglary, you are convicted and sentenced to a term of imprisonment of six years.
98On Charge 3, intentionally cause injury, you are convicted and sentenced to a term of imprisonment of two years.
99On Charge 4, common assault, is dismissed without recording a conviction.
100On Charge 5, common assault, is dismissed without recording a conviction.
101On Charge 6, common assault, is dismissed without recording a conviction.
102On Charge 7, common assault, is dismissed without recording a conviction.
103On Charge 8, false imprisonment, you are convicted and sentenced to a term of imprisonment of one year.
104On Charge 9, false imprisonment, you are convicted and sentenced to a term of imprisonment of one year.
105On Charge 10, false imprisonment, you are convicted and sentenced to a term of imprisonment of one year.
106On Charge 11, false imprisonment, you are convicted and sentenced to a term of imprisonment of one year.
107On Charge 12, false imprisonment, you are convicted and sentenced to a term of imprisonment of one year.
108On Charge 13, intentionally cause injury, you are convicted and sentenced to a term of imprisonment of two and a half years.
109On Charge 14, arson, you are convicted and sentenced to a term of imprisonment of two and a half years.
110I direct that one year of the sentence imposed on each of Charges 3 and 14, and six months of the sentence imposed on Charge 13, and three months of the sentence imposed on each of Charges 9 to 12 inclusive, cumulate upon the sentence imposed on Charge 2, making a total effective sentence of nine and a half years imprisonment.
111I direct that the sentence imposed on Charge 2 be served cumulatively upon the sentences you are currently serving.
112You have been in custody now for 1074 days, which equates approximately to about three weeks short of three years. That is for prior offending. The Court of Appeal re-sentenced you on 28 May this year to a total effective sentence of seven and a half years' imprisonment, and it fixed a non-parole period of five and a half years. It declared 901 days pre-sentence detention as at the
28 May 2019.113The result of all of this is that you still have approximately two and a half years still to serve of the sentence that you are currently serving imposed by the Court of Appeal before you are eligible for parole.
114Section 14(1)(b) of the act requires me, in these circumstances, to fix a new non-parole period. I direct that you, Hodgson, serve a minimum term of six and a half years' imprisonment from this date before being eligible for parole. Now, are there any matters arising out of that? I saw some movement about the calculation of the pre-sentence detention.
115MS TREASURE: Your Honour, our count of the Sianas pre-sentence detention is 537 days, not including today.
116HIS HONOUR: Very well, I will amend my remarks to make it 537 days.
117MS TREASURE: Thank you, Your Honour.
118HIS HONOUR: Are there questions arising out of that, Ms Connelly?
119COUNSEL: No, Your Honour.
120HIS HONOUR: Yes, very well, thank you. There is a disposal order sought by the prosecution in relation to two Apple iPhones, an LG mobile phone, a Samsung Galaxy, which I assume is a mobile phone, is it?
121MS TREASURE: That is, Your Honour, but - - -
122HIS HONOUR: And a set of bolt cutters. Are they opposed?
123MS CONNELLY: There is no opposition to the disposal, but there is still a prosecution for the possess firearm charge, and it may be that the prosecution do not want to dispose of those just yet.
124MS TREASURE: Your Honour, the orders no longer sought, given the pending manner.
125HIS HONOUR: I am sorry?
126MS TREASURE: The orders are no longer sought, given the pending matter.
127HIS HONOUR: I will hand that back, thank you. Would you take Mr Sianas and Mr Hodgson back into custody? Could I thank all counsel involved in this case and the instructing solicitors for your assistance in what was a difficult sentence and matter. Thank you very much.
128COUNSEL: Thank you, Your Honour.
- - -
0
0
0